I'm placing my bet

A case of Sky Valley mead on 1.75 million square kilometers. Total.

Gentlemen?

Although If you're raising with mead, I'd better call with a crate of Mangatainoka Dark.

According to the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) the minimum in 2009 was 5,249,844 sq km. Your chart is showing about 3,500,000 sq km.

Home Page
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/index.htm

Chart
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Data
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

Density is what this chart shows.

The area of sea-ice cover is often defined in two ways, i.e., sea-ice “extent” and sea-ice “area.” These multiple definitions of sea-ice cover may sometimes confuse data users. The former is defined as the areal sum of sea ice covering the ocean (sea ice + open ocean), whereas the latter “area” definition counts only sea ice covering a fraction of the ocean (sea ice only). Thus, the sea-ice extent is always larger than the sea-ice area. Because of the possible errors in SIC mentioned above, satellite-derived sea-ice concentration can be underestimated, particularly in summer. In such a case, the sea-ice area is more susceptible to errors than the sea-ice extent. Thus, we adopt the definition of sea-ice extent to monitor the variation of the Arctic sea ice on this site.


Including open water as ice is somewhat counter productive for our purposes. Actually, it's hard to see a purpose where it would be productive, but I assume IJIS have their reasons.

No case of anything to place though. ;)

Two 4-packs of Burton Baton.

No, fuck it, a whole case.

And I've got some North Coast Old Rasputin that sez it'll be so!

:toast:

well enough to put up a case of Full Sail Pail Ale on ice.

:o

Oh, you mean the ice.

Yeah.

You're one to talk.

Give 'em a medal, I say...

:o

But maybe this would be a good time to start.

--d!

:evilgrin:
:toast:

or does it look like the ice inflected in teh other direction? :o

It's definitely declining more rapidly now.

I haven't done anything like an exhaustive literature search and have no way to do so, but I don't believe there are any comprehensive year-round ice-thickness studies being done. (Such a measurement would be Sea Ice Volume, measured in km³, of course.) I hope you'll inform me if I'm wrong about that, and there are such studies. Most of the data we have seems to be from satellite-based microwave "brightness" maps. Sea ice age is the NSIDC's proxy for ice thickness and I think it's measured only by drilling and analyzing ice cores. The NSIDC has a page with links to PDF copies of http://nsidc.org/pubs/notes/">NSIDC Notes, and the methods they use are explained throughout in lay language. I still have many left to read!

I do know that many of the scientists working in polar Earth science have said that the ice is certainly thinning, but it's still something I've only seen as an anecdote. I don't question their conclusions, but like most good amateur scientists (i.e., geeks and fanbois), I tend to develop psychosomatic symptoms and numerous nervous tics when I have to deal with reality without numbers.

Back to the graph in the OP: the usual anomaly on August 1 is about -1.0. This year, it's below -1.5 (-1.529 in the graphic at 2010-08-01 0600Z). This currently suggests a minimum of just under 2.0 million km², but that's a rough projection. I've been going through an anti-catastrophizing "phase". So let me just say that this leads us further into, ahem, uncharted waters.

--d!

That being said, it should bottom out at around the 3 million mark.

Assuming the recession continues for as long as 2009 did, I drew a straight line to that same point in 2010. If the melt goes longer or shorter of course the extrapolation is going to be off. Just wanted to see what it would look like if I drew a straight line between those two points.

In '09, the refreeze began around the second week of September and was well under way by the end of the month. The same was true of '08. If the same holds true this year, it should bottom at about 3 mill as I guessed in my previous post (which, if you look at your line is about where it will be at that point as well).

This is 13 grid boxes. 3 million would be 11 grid boxes. I don't know if that will pan out, but the line I drew is very conservative (on the border of 12-13 grid boxes). You are assuming a much earlier refreeze this year.

What's throwing it off is that it's a straight line.

Start at the line of the grid in the middle above 2008, 2009, and 2010...that is January 1st. Go to the end of the 7th square to the right and that is August 1st. One square over (Sep 1), and the bottoms are occurring in the first half of that month. Aug 1 '08 ice area approx 4.3 mil, bottomed at 3 mil (-1.3 mil). Aug 1 '09 ice area approx 4.8 mil, bottomed at 3.5 mil (-1.3 mil). Aug 1 '10 ice area 4.47 mil. If the -1.3 mil pattern continues, this is why I expect a 3 mil bottom.

The curve I posted bottoms out in Sept (the 13th grid counting the first grid), as one would expect. The "13 grid" statement is counting Sept twice.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/area-vs-extent.html

One of the commenters posts: With such a huge difference between area and extent, there is a possibility that the extent may decrease late into September or early October. It would take the right weather condtions, but a little bit of nilas or thin ice, between the pack in early autumn; will not stop the compaction with the fall storms blowing in the right direction.

If it is extrapolated to Oct. or late Sept. then things get really interesting.

My understanding right now is that the ice isn't shifting around as quickly as it does in a typical year, and that's keeping a lot of it from being exported out of the Arctic basin. Renewed movement would prevent refreeze and lead to further loss.

:P

Don't tell me you fell for it !?

:D

:evilgrin:

:popcorn:

when the ice should start growing again.

:P

With your "science" and your "graphs".